What is interesting in the rationalization below is that with such reasoning, apologies or attitudinal changes are not necessary nor is the perception of change possible. I am right and you are wrong is the resulting message. Such is the apparent limitation of e-mail communication.
John Smithson
In a message dated 11/12/2004 9:57:56 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lance wrote:
>The portion beginning 'could it be that..' was probably unnecessary
>unless 'one' (this one) missed the humorous intent therein.
>
>I suspect, David, that you'll die living in utter denial re: the
>presence of an 'attitude' present within some of your posts
I recognize that I have an attitude in my posts. Everyone projects an
attitude, whether it be humerous, light hearted, angy and upset, or serious
and studious. I have noticed that the attitude of my posts is discerned to
be different by different people. I have found that those who have met me
and know me, like Izzy or Michael Douglas, perceive the attitude of my posts
differently than those such as you and John S. They are always more
accurate in understanding my true attitude, but that is because they know my
personality and nature. They can better supply the unseen body language as
they read the posts.
The caveat of e-mail communication is to be careful about not ascribing evil
motives to the person whom you read. Without body language, it is too easy
to jump to false conclusions.
Peace be with you.
David Miller.
